Agreed. So let's go with a new set of headers. I propose the following:
request-id (goes in any STOMP client->broker request command ... currently only CONNECT) response-id (goes in any STOMP client<-broker response command ... currently only CONNECTED) I've changed "command-id" to "request-id" so that it's clearer that the two headers are related. How does this sound? Nate -----Original Message----- From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [stomp-dev] RE: STOMP and connect/connected handshake FWIW the correlation-id currently maps to JMSCorrelationID - but is only used on JMS messages rather than on commands like CONNECT etc. Though the JMSCorrelationID is often an out of band correlation; rather than correlating a request stomp command to a stomp response; so maybe another header name would avoid confusion? On 6/12/06, Mittler, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is already a correlation-id header defined in the AMQ extensions: > http://www.activemq.org/site/stomp.html - I was trying to reuse this > header for the connect handshake. I don't feel that strongly one way or > the other. The name "response-id" is fine - we'd just have to add > another header to our list of extensions (we'd have to do that for the > "command-id" header anyway). > > Nate > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram > Chirino > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:05 AM > To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: STOMP and connect/connected handshake > > Cross posting to the stomp mailing list too since someone there might > have some input on this. > > I like the idea about supporting a command-id header. I might prefer > the correlation header to be called response-id instead of > correlation-id. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Jun 12, 2006 6:13 AM > Subject: STOMP and connect/connected handshake > To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org > > > For the new activemq-cpp library, we need to extend the STOMP > connect/connected handshake so that we get back a correlation-id for our > response correlator. To do this, we need to send something in the > connect > request that contains a client-defined command-id. My first thought was > to > just reuse the message-id header, but that is typically reserved for > cases > when a client is expecting to acknowledge a message. So rather than > risk > breaking that paradigm, I created a new header "command-id" that is just > used on the connect message. When the broker receives a connect request > with a command-id header, it creates a connected response with a > correlation-id set to the command-id of the original request. This way > the > client can treat the handshake as a true request/response. > > Does anyone see any problems with adding this to the broker? > > Regards, > Nate > > > > -- > Regards, > Hiram > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
